Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
September 14, 2010, Decided; September 14, 2010, Filed
Case No. 05 C 5622
[*1092] MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Goss International Americas, Inc. ("Goss") sued Defendants Graphic Management Associates, Inc. ("GMA"), Muller Martini Corp. ("Muller Martini"), Müller Martini Druckverarbeitungs-Systeme AG ("Müller Martini D-S"), Müller Martini Holding AG ("Müller Martini Holding"), Müller Martini Marketing AG ("Müller Martini Marketing"), and Grapha-Holding AG ("Grapha") (collectively "the Defendants") alleging direct and indirect infringement of United States Patent No. 6,082,724 ("the '724 patent"). Specifically, Goss alleges that GMA has directly infringed the '724 patent by making and selling, in the United States, equipment known as models SLS3000 and SLS 3000XL, and by importing and using the ProLiner model. Goss also alleges that Müller Martini has directly infringed the '724 patent by selling, in the United States, the Supra model, [**3] which is made abroad by Müller Martini D-S. Finally, Goss alleges that the four Swiss Defendants—Müller [*1093] Martini D-S, Müller Martini Holding, Müller Martini Marketing, and Grapha—have indirectly infringed the '724 patent by actively inducing the alleged direct infringing activities of the two American Defendants. The Defendants counterclaimed seeking a declaratory judgment that the '724 patent is invalid and has not been infringed by the Defendants.
Between Goss and the Defendants, there are eleven pending Motions for Summary Judgment and five pending Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, which the Court describes in more detail below. Generally, Goss seeks summary judgment of infringement on four devices owned by the Defendants: the SLS3000, the SLS3000XL, the ProLiner, and the Supra. The Defendants cross-move for summary judgment of non-infringement on all four devices. The Court refers to these eight Cross-Motions as "the Infringement Motions." Goss also seeks summary judgment of inducement of infringement against the Swiss Defendants and the Defendants seek summary judgment that two of the four Swiss Defendants are not liable for inducement. The Court refers to these two Motions as [**4] "the Inducement Motions." The Defendants and Goss also seek summary judgment on the issue of whether the '724 patent is invalid in light of the prior art. The Court refers to these two Motions as "the Invalidity Motions." The parties cross-move for summary judgment on the issue of whether the '724 patent is invalid for lack of enablement. The Court refers to these two Cross-Motions as "the Enablement Motions." Finally, the Defendants seek summary judgment that if infringement is found, Goss is not entitled to lost profits and that infringement, if found, is not willful.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53, and by the consent of the parties, the previous Judge assigned to this case, the Honorable Blanche M. Manning ("Judge Manning"), referred these voluminous Motions to Special Master Robert L. Harmon ("Special Master Harmon").1 (See R. 376, Order Granting Agreed Mot. to Appoint Robert Harmon as Special Master at 2.) On January 13, 2010, after reviewing the parties' Motions, Special Master Harmon submitted a comprehensive 126-page Report and Recommendation ("Report"). (See R. 471.) In his Report, Special Master Harmon recommended that the Court: (1) deny the parties' Infringement [**5] Motions and Cross-Motions because genuine issues of material fact exist, but grant the Defendants' SLS3000 and SLS3000XL Cross-Motions only as to claims 9 and 10; (2) deny Goss's Inducement Motion; (3) grant Grapha and Müller Martini Holding's Inducement Motion; (4) deny the Defendants' Invalidity Motion; (5) grant in part and deny in part Goss's Invalidity Motion; (6) deny the Defendants' Enablement Motion and grant Goss's Enablement Cross-Motion; (7) deny the Defendants' Lost Profits Motion as to the SLS3000, but grant the Motion as to the [*1094] Supra; and (8) grant the Defendants' Motion as to Willfulness.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
739 F. Supp. 2d 1089 *; 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95468 **
GOSS INTERNATIONAL AMERICAS, INC., Plaintiff, v. GRAPHIC MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC., MULLER MARTINI CORP., MÜLLER MARTINI CORP., MÜLLER MARTINI DRUCKVERARBEITUNGS-SYSTEME AG, MÜLLER MARTINI HOLDING AG, MÜLLER MARTINI MARKETING AG, and GRAPHA-HOLDING AG, Defendants.
Prior History: Goss Int'l Ams., Inc. v. Graphic Mgmt. Assocs., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46568 (N.D. Ill., June 11, 2008)
feeder, infringement, feed, conveyor, sensor, sheet, control means, patent, speed, Invalidity, summary judgment, recommendation, plurality, drive, denies, signals, means-plus-function, includes, Cross-Motion, manuals, microcomputer, Inducement, specification, motors, prior art, variable speed motor, genuine issue of material fact, output, overrules, parties